From: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@steeleye.com>
To: "Smart, James" <James.Smart@Emulex.Com>
Cc: Luben Tuikov <luben_tuikov@adaptec.com>,
Mike Anderson <andmike@us.ibm.com>,
SCSI Mailing List <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure
Date: 16 Jun 2004 12:21:03 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1087406464.2796.30.camel@mulgrave> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3356669BBE90C448AD4645C843E2BF28034F94F0@xbl.ma.emulex.com>
On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 12:10, Smart, James wrote:
> I can appreciate the protectionist point of view. My only contention is -
> how do you really derive that 1 reset is any less valid than 2 ? it totally
> depends on what the original timeout was relative to whatever the duration
> is for the LLDD event that is requesting the reset.
Who said anything about reset?
This is just early notification of something going wrong. If the
command needs to be retried (or an event that throws the command away is
to be triggered), that's done using the EH_NOT_HANDLED and activating
the eh thread.
I'm not wedded to the current method of handling retries. It would be
feasible to use a more normal count to not allow non-retryable commands
to be delayed.
James
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-16 17:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-16 17:10 [PATCH]: Flexible timeout infrastructure Smart, James
2004-06-16 17:21 ` James Bottomley [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-06-16 18:05 Smart, James
2004-06-16 17:33 Smart, James
2004-06-16 17:38 ` James Bottomley
2004-06-16 16:58 Smart, James
2004-06-16 17:04 ` James Bottomley
2004-06-16 18:58 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-16 19:17 ` James Bottomley
2004-06-15 15:02 Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 15:27 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-06-15 15:40 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 15:42 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-06-15 15:46 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 15:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-06-15 15:43 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-06-15 15:48 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 15:57 ` Christoph Hellwig
2004-06-15 16:07 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-06-15 16:24 ` Doug Ledford
2004-06-15 16:27 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 16:33 ` Arjan van de Ven
2004-06-15 18:07 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 15:31 ` James Bottomley
2004-06-15 18:15 ` Mike Anderson
2004-06-15 18:37 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 19:20 ` Mike Anderson
2004-06-15 19:52 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 20:57 ` Mike Anderson
2004-06-15 22:00 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 22:31 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 22:13 ` Doug Ledford
2004-06-15 19:12 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-15 19:54 ` James Bottomley
2004-06-16 15:27 ` Mike Anderson
2004-06-16 15:37 ` James Bottomley
2004-06-16 15:48 ` Luben Tuikov
2004-06-16 15:58 ` James Bottomley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1087406464.2796.30.camel@mulgrave \
--to=james.bottomley@steeleye.com \
--cc=James.Smart@Emulex.Com \
--cc=andmike@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luben_tuikov@adaptec.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox